Re: review of document-overview

I made some of changes Christine suggested, and some related changes.

> Christine Golbreich wrote:
> > Below some comments on the Roadmap section of the Document Overview
> >
> > 1. Put the Roadmap at top, as the first section of the Document Overview
> >
> 
> I do not think I agree with this. The 'logical' reading of this document
> is to get some sort of a very high level picture of OWL in general,
> before diving into the details on how and what is documented and where
> (which is the roadmap).
> 
> I agree that the purpose is to provide a "high level view". However, as  we
> mention everywhere that " The OWL 2 Document Overview describes the overall
> state of OWL 2, and should be read **before** other OWL 2 documents", I
> assume we hope it to be read the first document read :-).
> In my view, the Overview is like a Preamble of the "Book". The RoadMap at
> its Top would be  viewed like a Table of Contents of the "Book".
> It would be easier for a reader to have an easy acces to the Table of
> Contents at the beginning rather to look for it and find it at the end.
> 
> If it's not the Roadmap, anyway something is needed at the top of the Doc
> Overview to play that role.

I'm leaning towards agreeing with Christine on this, that the Roadmap
should go first, as a sort of master Table Of Contents for the whole
set.  But I'll wait until we talk about it at the telecon before making
this change.

> > 2.  Roadmap
> >
> > a) Add some global text for users below the Roadmap picture , something
> > like
> > The OWL 2 Document Overview describes should be read before other OWL 2
> > documents.
> > The reading order of the other documents depends on the audience.
> > Advanced readers who are interested in technical aspects, may read the
> > documents 2 to 5 that form the technical core of OWL 2 and 6 which
> > describes the Profiles. Readers familiar with OWL 1 who want an overview
> > of the main new features that have been added to OWL 2 and of their
> > rationale, may read document 9. Readers who look for a guide introducing
> > OWL 2 and explaining how to use it may read document 8. Ontology
> > developers who need a  language synopsis may use document 10. Developers
> > interested in conformance test cases may refer to document 10, users
> > interested in Manchester syntax should go to document 12  (to be
> > completed for 11 -13)

My hope is that the document descriptions in the table are good enough
that people can figure out which they need to read, and in which order.

> AFAIK, we did discuss having such a text added to each document's
> introduction instead of putting the current table everywhere, but I am
> not sure we already have such a text drafted. But I presume the same
> text could be reused here
> 
> What I understood, perhaps wrongly, is that instead of putting the Table of
> the Roadmap everywhere we'll  have some text everywhere pointing to the
> Overview, which is now the case: all documents in their abstract have the
> sentence "The OWL 2 Document Overview describes the overall state of OWL 2,
> and should be read before other OWL 2 documents." which precisely points to
> the Doc Overview.
> Thus normally a reader should go first to the Overview, and might be happy
> to find at it's top the " Table " to know where to jump.
> 
> The little texte I suggested above was rather to comment the Table. I'm not
> sure such a text is very useful at the beginning of each doc. Its pointer t=
> o
> the Overview seems enough IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> > b) The link XML Serialization  is broken

Fixed.

> > c) I'd rather link to the wiki documents to prevent misundertanding or
> > confusions at the announcement of its publication w.r.t. LC comments

I agree.   I added an EdNote explaining this.

> > d) I suggest to remove all specific mentions at users documents like
> > "being revised /being completed" for the users documents, because they
> > may be shortly obsolete, and replace it by a single warning at top,
> > mentionning that all documents are under revision.

Done.

> > e) For QRG I'd suggest to replace the sentence : "provides an overview
> > of the various OWL 2 features in general" by something closer to the QRG
> > abstract, e.g. like "provide a quick synopsis to the OWL 2 language".

Done -- I came up with new text to describe QRG.  I also changed the
descriptions of XML and DRE, trying to be more helpful to people who
don't already know what they are.

      - Sandro

> > Given the schedule I don't know how to process.
> > I 'm available to make the changes on the wiki of those that don't raise
> > objection.
> >
> Sandro has offered to make the changes he proposed himself. I would
> prefer to let him do these, otherwise we get into some wiki-fight where
> everybody looses...
> 
> OK.
> 
> - Afficher le texte des messages pr=E9c=E9dents -
> 
> 
> Ivan
> 
> > Christine
> >
> >
> > 2009/3/10 Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org <mailto:sandro@w3.org<sandro@w3.org=
> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >     I don't think we assigned reviewers, and I we're scheduled to make a
> >     publication decision in about 36 hours; so I did a review, and here i=
> t
> >     is.
> >
> >     With editorship of this document a little vague, and Ian unavailable
> >     this week, I'm not quite sure how to proceed.  Here's my suggestion:
> if
> >     you agree with one of my comments, reply with a "+1" to it.  If you
> >     don't, reply with a "-1" and/or explanation.  Any of my proposed
> changes
> >     which get at least one +1 and no -1's, I'll try to implement.  (My
> >     timeline for this will depend on when/how folks reply.)  (In some
> cases,
> >     I make disjunctive proposals, and you should clarify which option
> you're
> >     approving or objecting to.)
> >
> >     My review is on this version:
> >     http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Document_Overview?oldid=3D18827
> >
> >     A few of these (like what documents to link to, and fixing the
> abstract)
> >     are show-stoppers; IMO they really have to be addressed before
> >     publication.   I'd like to see them all addressed.
> >
> >            -- Sandro
> >
> >     =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> >
> >     Document Overview
> >
> >     * The abstract needs to be handled as a special case; right now the
> >      first paragraph gets weird, talking about itself in the third
> >      person.
> >
> >     * I think the title should be
> >
> >         OWL 2 Web Ontology Language
> >         Part 1: Document Overview
> >
> >     SECTION 1
> >
> >     * "Ontologies are formalised" -> "Ontologies are formalized"
> >
> >      "W3C uses U.S. English (e.g., "standardise" should read
> >      "standardize" and "behaviour" should read "behavior")."  --
> >      http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#Spelling
> >
> >     * OWL 1 was developed by the Web Ontology WG, not the OWL WG.
> >
> >     SECTION 2 (Overview)
> >
> >     * "At the top are various concrete syntaxes that can be used to"
> >                                               ^ discussed in section 2.2
> >
> >     * "At the bottom are the two semantic specifications"
> >                                                        ^ discussion in
> >                                                        seciton 2.3
> >
> >       (without these forward references, the diagram is unexpectedly
> >       baffling, I think)
> >
> >     * I'd make the diagram bigger -- maybe 700px across instead of 600,
> >      but maybe that's just me.     Also a little color might be nice.
> >      Ivan, will the source work in InkScape?
> >
> >     SECTION 2.1 Ontologies
> >
> >     * (here and elsewhere) "OWL 2 Specification" is a really bad referenc=
> e
> >      name for Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax.  I
> >      don't know what we should call it, but calling part 2 of the OWL 2
> >      specification "specification" is ... not okay.  (Yes, I know we've
> >      done this in our other publication so far; I didn't want to make a
> >      stink then because we'd argued too much about naming, but now lookin=
> g
> >      at it again from the perspective of someone coming fresh to our
> >      documents, ...  "No!")
> >
> >      There's an argument that we should always refer to other parts of th=
> e
> >      OWL 2 spec using the approved shortname, in which case this referenc=
> e
> >      would be "owl2-syntax", but ... that's a pretty confusing name, too,
> >      especially in a sentence explaining how it's not about syntax.
> >
> >      I think my favorite would be "OWL2 Structures".  Maybe we should
> >      change the shortname from owl2-syntax to owl2-structures, too.
> >
> >     SECTION 2.2 Syntax
> >
> >     * "serialisation" (UK spelling)
> >
> >     * Maybe do a table of the syntaxes and their properties?
> >      (Name, Specified In, Required?, Description)
> >
> >     SECTION 2.3 Semantics
> >
> >     * "OWL 2 Ontologies that are interpreted using the RDF-Based Semantic=
> s
> >      are called 'OWL 2 Full' ontologies. " and the last paragraph
> >      paragraph...
> >
> >      I think OWL Full is/should be the name of a syntactic subset --
> >      specifically the trivial subset that is the full language.  The
> >      choice of semantics is orthogonal.
> >
> >     * On the editor's note -- we don't need to characterize it here; it's
> >      too technical for this.
> >
> >     * So, the last paragraph needs lots of work, since it conflates
> >      syntactic subset (OWL DL) with choice of semantics (Direct
> >      Semantics).
> >
> >     * I think it would help to have a table like this, to help make the
> >      point about the tradeoffs between the semantics, and their
> >      relationship with syntactic subsets...
> >          http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/owl2-matrix
> >      but it still needs some work, and maybe can never be accurate
> >      enough to be more helpful than harmful.
> >
> >     SECTION 3: Profiles
> >
> >     * I'd prefer this numbered as 2.4.  I think it's more at the same
> level
> >      as 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 and 2/4/5.  ACTUALLY, I think I'd put this
> BEFORE
> >      Semantics, so we can do the table of Profiles-vs-Semantics.  The
> >      profiles can be done without talking about the two semantics.
> >
> >     * I'd like to include a Venn Diagram, perhaps a version of
> >      http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/owl2-profiles-doc
> >      without the roll-overs, and in black-and-white (or make the other
> >      diagram be in color).
> >
> >     * I'd like to make it more clear that the profiles are syntactic
> >      subsets -- and that there may be benefits for sticking within those
> >      subsets -- and nothing magical than that.
> >
> >     * In particular, DL is a syntactic subset of OWL 2, even though it's
> >      not described in Profiles.   That should be shown in this section.
> >
> >     SECTION 4: Differences between OWL 2 and the previous version of OWL
> >
> >     * Very clunky title...  How about "What's New In OWL 2"?  (it even
> >      rhymes)
> >
> >     * Maybe subsections, "What's the Same" and "What's New", which seems
> to
> >      be the text here, if divided into groups the same size as the
> >      subsections in 2.
> >
> >     * The references here (and in some other places) are not preceeded by
> >      a space, giving us stuff like "Syntax[OWL 1", which seems
> >      typographically wrong to me...
> >
> >     * The XML syntax for OWL 1 seems oddly described, and the link seems
> >      wrong.
> >
> >     * Obviously the editor's note "Editor's Note: Is this correct? Or are
> >      there corner cases to be mentioned?"  needs to be cleaned up before
> >      publication!  I don't know, either.  If it were left to me, I'd have
> >      to leave it in phrased as "still under investigation" or something.
> >
> >     * "OWL 1 had only one profile" ...  I think of DL and Full as a
> >      profiles.
> >
> >     * In what sense was OWL Lite "not retained"?  You can still use it.
> >      Maybe better to say to say no new specification for it has been
> >      provided in OWL2, but it is still usable as a subset of OWL2.
> >
> >     * Last paragraph (about punning) should probably have a link to more
> >      details, since it's a deeply confusing concept.
> >
> >     SECTION 5 Documentation Roadmap
> >
> >     * Let's just call it "Document" Roadmap (not "Documentation") unless
> >      we're calling this the "Documentation Overview" (which isn't what we
> >      decided.)
> >
> >     * Ummmm.  What versions are we linking to here, for this release of
> >      Doc-Overview?  The Wiki?  The 2008-12-02 versions?  What about
> >      Profiles, which is seriously out of date in all versions, and DRE
> >      which hasn't yet been published?  I GUESS we link to the last TR,
> >      except in the case of DRE, in which case we say it's to be published
> >      soon, and for Profiles include text in the roadmap about it being ou=
> t
> >      of date.
> >
> >     * There's been some talk of changing the order.  The obvious things
> are
> >      to put the non-core specs togther, before or after the user docs.  I
> >      happen to like it as it is, since I think "Profiles" is more core
> than
> >      the other non-core specs, but I wouldn't object to a change.  We
> >      should probably have a WG resolution on this; I expect RPI and
> >      Manchester to have strong conflicting views on this.
> >
> >     SECTION 6 References
> >
> >     * I think these should be organized, somehow; right now I guess they
> >      are in the order the references are made?   It ends up looking
> >      pretty random.
> >
> >      How about alphabetic within groups, where the
> >      groups are something like:
> >          OWL 1
> >          OWL 2
> >          Other   (maybe divided into W3C and Non-W3C)
> >
> >     * Same question as in Roadmap about which versions we refer to here.
> >
> >     SECTION 7 Notes
> >
> >     * I don't really think an overview like this should have footnotes.
> >      They don't seem overview-y.
> >
> >     * For Note 1 (from 2.2), this seems too detailed and novel for the
> >      overview.  And it kind of seems to undermine conformance -- is
> >      RDF/XML required or not?  Let's just drop this note, and address
> >      this somewhere else if necessary.
> >
> >     * For Note 2 (from 2.3), this could be inlined in 2.3, or dropped.
> >
> >     * For Note 3 (from Profiles), that could go into parentheses.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Christine
> 
> --
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile:  +31-641044153
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
> 
> 
> --=20
> Christine
> --=20
> Christine
> 
> --000e0cd29cb07e30800464c8d977
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 
> <br><br>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">2009/3/10 Ivan Herman &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:ivan=
> @w3.org">ivan@w3.org</a>&gt;</div>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">=A0</div>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br>Christine Golbreich wrote:<br>&gt; Below som=
> e comments on the Roadmap section of the Document Overview<br>&gt;<br>&gt; =
> 1. Put the Roadmap at top, as the first section of the Document Overview<br=
> >
> &gt;</div>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br>I do not think I agree with this. The &#39;l=
> ogical&#39; reading of this document<br>is to get some sort of a very high =
> level picture of OWL in general,<br>before diving into the details on how a=
> nd what is documented and where<br>
> (which is the roadmap).<br>=A0<br><font color=3D"#3333ff">I agree that the =
> purpose is to provide a &quot;high level view&quot;. However, as=A0 we ment=
> ion everywhere that &quot; The OWL 2 Document Overview describes the overal=
> l state of OWL 2, and should be read **before** other OWL 2 documents&quot;=
> , I assume we hope it to be read the first document read :-). <br>
> In my view, the Overview is like a Preamble of the &quot;Book&quot;. The Ro=
> adMap at its Top would be=A0 viewed like a Table of Contents of the &quot;B=
> ook&quot;.<br>It would be easier for a reader to have an easy acces to the =
> Table of Contents at the beginning rather to look for it and find it at the=
>  end.<br>
> =A0<br>If it&#39;s not the Roadmap, anyway something is needed at the top o=
> f the Doc Overview to play that role.<br>=A0</font></div>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote"><font color=3D"#3366ff"></font>=A0</div>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">&gt; 2.=A0 Roadmap<br>&gt;<br>&gt; a) Add some g=
> lobal text for users below the Roadmap picture , something<br>&gt; like<br>=
> &gt; The OWL 2 Document Overview describes should be read before other OWL =
> 2<br>
> &gt; documents.<br>&gt; The reading order of the other documents depends on=
>  the audience.<br>&gt; Advanced readers who are interested in technical asp=
> ects, may read the<br>&gt; documents 2 to 5 that form the technical core of=
>  OWL 2 and 6 which<br>
> &gt; describes the Profiles. Readers familiar with OWL 1 who want an overvi=
> ew<br>&gt; of the main new features that have been added to OWL 2 and of th=
> eir<br>&gt; rationale, may read document 9. Readers who look for a guide in=
> troducing<br>
> &gt; OWL 2 and explaining how to use it may read document 8. Ontology<br>&g=
> t; developers who need a=A0 language synopsis may use document 10. Develope=
> rs<br>&gt; interested in conformance test cases may refer to document 10, u=
> sers<br>
> &gt; interested in Manchester syntax should go to document 12=A0 (to be<br>=
> &gt; completed for 11 -13)<br>&gt;</div>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br>AFAIK, we did discuss having such a text add=
> ed to each document&#39;s<br>introduction instead of putting the current ta=
> ble everywhere, but I am<br>not sure we already have such a text drafted. B=
> ut I presume the same<br>
> text could be reused here<br>=A0<br><font color=3D"#3333ff">What I understo=
> od, perhaps wrongly, is that instead of putting the Table of the Roadmap ev=
> erywhere we&#39;ll=A0 have some text everywhere pointing to the Overview, w=
> hich is now the case: all documents in their abstract have the sentence &qu=
> ot;The OWL 2 Document Overview describes the overall state of OWL 2, and sh=
> ould be read before other OWL 2 documents.&quot; which precisely points to =
> the Doc Overview.<br>
> Thus normally a reader should go first to the Overview, and might be happy =
> to find at it&#39;s top the &quot; Table &quot; to know where to jump.<br>=
> =A0<br></font><font color=3D"#3333ff">The little texte I suggested above wa=
> s rather to comment the Table. I&#39;m not sure such a text is very useful =
> at the beginning of each doc. Its pointer to the Overview seems enough IMO.=
> </font><br>
> =A0<br>=A0</div>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br>&gt; b) The link XML Serialization=A0 is bro=
> ken<br>&gt;<br>&gt; c) I&#39;d rather link to the wiki documents to prevent=
>  misundertanding or<br>&gt; confusions at the announcement of its publicati=
> on w.r.t. LC comments<br>
> &gt;<br>&gt; d) I suggest to remove all specific mentions at users document=
> s like<br>&gt; &quot;being revised /being completed&quot; for the users doc=
> uments, because they<br>&gt; may be shortly obsolete, and replace it by a s=
> ingle warning at top,<br>
> &gt; mentionning that all documents are under revision.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; e) =
> For QRG I&#39;d suggest to replace the sentence : &quot;provides an overvie=
> w<br>&gt; of the various OWL 2 features in general&quot; by something close=
> r to the QRG<br>
> &gt; abstract, e.g. like &quot;provide a quick synopsis to the OWL 2 langua=
> ge&quot;.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Given the schedule I don&#39;t know how to proces=
> s.<br>&gt; I &#39;m available to make the changes on the wiki of those that=
>  don&#39;t raise<br>
> &gt; objection.<br>&gt;</div>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">Sandro has offered to make the changes he propos=
> ed himself. I would<br>prefer to let him do these, otherwise we get into so=
> me wiki-fight where<br>everybody looses...<br>=A0<br><font color=3D"#3333ff=
> ">OK.</font></div>
> 
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote"><font color=3D"#3333ff"><br></font>- Afficher le=
>  texte des messages pr=E9c=E9dents -<br>=A0</div>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br>Ivan</div>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br>&gt; Christine<br>&gt;<br>&gt;<br>&gt; 2009/=
> 3/10 Sandro Hawke &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:sandro@w3.org">sandro@w3.org</a> &l=
> t;<a href=3D"mailto:sandro@w3.org">mailto:sandro@w3.org</a>&gt;&gt;</div>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">&gt;<br>&gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 I don&#39;t thi=
> nk we assigned reviewers, and I we&#39;re scheduled to make a<br>&gt;=A0=A0=
> =A0=A0 publication decision in about 36 hours; so I did a review, and here =
> it<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 is.<br>
> &gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 With editorship of this document a little vague, a=
> nd Ian unavailable<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 this week, I&#39;m not quite sure ho=
> w to proceed.=A0 Here&#39;s my suggestion: if<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 you agree=
>  with one of my comments, reply with a &quot;+1&quot; to it.=A0 If you<br>
> &gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 don&#39;t, reply with a &quot;-1&quot; and/or explanation.=
> =A0 Any of my proposed changes<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 which get at least one +=
> 1 and no -1&#39;s, I&#39;ll try to implement.=A0 (My<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 ti=
> meline for this will depend on when/how folks reply.)=A0 (In some cases,<br=
> >
> &gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 I make disjunctive proposals, and you should clarify which=
>  option you&#39;re<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 approving or objecting to.)<br>&gt;<=
> br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 My review is on this version:<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 <a hr=
> ef=3D"http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Document_Overview?oldid=3D18827">http=
> ://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Document_Overview?oldid=3D18827</a><br>
> &gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 A few of these (like what documents to link to, an=
> d fixing the abstract)<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 are show-stoppers; IMO they real=
> ly have to be addressed before<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 publication.=A0=A0 I&#39=
> ;d like to see them all addressed.<br>
> &gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 -- Sandro<br>&gt;<br>&gt;=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<br>&gt;<br>&gt;=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0 Document Overview<br>&gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 * The abstract need=
> s to be handled as a special case; right now the<br>
> &gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 first paragraph gets weird, talking about itself in the=
>  third<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 person.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 * I think=
>  the title should be<br>&gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 OWL 2 Web Onto=
> logy Language<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Part 1: Document Overview<br>
> &gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 SECTION 1<br>&gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 * &quot;Onto=
> logies are formalised&quot; -&gt; &quot;Ontologies are formalized&quot;<br>=
> &gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 &quot;W3C uses U.S. English (e.g., &quot;standa=
> rdise&quot; should read<br>
> &gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 &quot;standardize&quot; and &quot;behaviour&quot; shoul=
> d read &quot;behavior&quot;).&quot;=A0 --<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 <a href=3D=
> "http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#Spelling">http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manu=
> al/#Spelling</a><br>
> &gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 * OWL 1 was developed by the Web Ontology WG, not =
> the OWL WG.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 SECTION 2 (Overview)<br>&gt;<br>&gt=
> ;=A0=A0=A0=A0 * &quot;At the top are various concrete syntaxes that can be =
> used to&quot;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0 ^ discussed in section 2.2<br>
> &gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 * &quot;At the bottom are the two semantic specifi=
> cations&quot;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ^ discussion in<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
>  seciton 2.3<br>
> &gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 (without these forward references, the diagr=
> am is unexpectedly<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 baffling, I think)<br>&gt;<br>=
> &gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 * I&#39;d make the diagram bigger -- maybe 700px across in=
> stead of 600,<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 but maybe that&#39;s just me.=A0=A0=A0=
> =A0 Also a little color might be nice.<br>
> &gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Ivan, will the source work in InkScape?<br>&gt;<br>&gt;=
> =A0=A0=A0=A0 SECTION 2.1 Ontologies<br>&gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 * (here and=
>  elsewhere) &quot;OWL 2 Specification&quot; is a really bad reference<br>&g=
> t;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 name for Structural Specification and Functional-Style Sy=
> ntax.=A0 I<br>
> &gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 don&#39;t know what we should call it, but calling part=
>  2 of the OWL 2<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 specification &quot;specification&qu=
> ot; is ... not okay.=A0 (Yes, I know we&#39;ve<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 done =
> this in our other publication so far; I didn&#39;t want to make a<br>
> &gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 stink then because we&#39;d argued too much about namin=
> g, but now looking<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 at it again from the perspective =
> of someone coming fresh to our<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 documents, ...=A0 &qu=
> ot;No!&quot;)<br>&gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 There&#39;s an argument that w=
> e should always refer to other parts of the<br>
> &gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 OWL 2 spec using the approved shortname, in which case =
> this reference<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 would be &quot;owl2-syntax&quot;, but=
>  ... that&#39;s a pretty confusing name, too,<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 especi=
> ally in a sentence explaining how it&#39;s not about syntax.<br>
> &gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 I think my favorite would be &quot;OWL2 Structu=
> res&quot;.=A0 Maybe we should<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 change the shortname f=
> rom owl2-syntax to owl2-structures, too.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 SECTIO=
> N 2.2 Syntax<br>&gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 * &quot;serialisation&quot; (UK sp=
> elling)<br>
> &gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 * Maybe do a table of the syntaxes and their prope=
> rties?<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 (Name, Specified In, Required?, Description)<=
> br>&gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 SECTION 2.3 Semantics<br>&gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=
> =A0 * &quot;OWL 2 Ontologies that are interpreted using the RDF-Based Seman=
> tics<br>
> &gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 are called &#39;OWL 2 Full&#39; ontologies. &quot; and =
> the last paragraph<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 paragraph...<br>&gt;<br>&gt;=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0=A0 I think OWL Full is/should be the name of a syntactic subset -=
> -<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 specifically the trivial subset that is the full l=
> anguage.=A0 The<br>
> &gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 choice of semantics is orthogonal.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0 * On the editor&#39;s note -- we don&#39;t need to characterize i=
> t here; it&#39;s<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 too technical for this.<br>&gt;<br>=
> &gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 * So, the last paragraph needs lots of work, since it conf=
> lates<br>
> &gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 syntactic subset (OWL DL) with choice of semantics (Dir=
> ect<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Semantics).<br>&gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 * I thin=
> k it would help to have a table like this, to help make the<br>&gt;=A0=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0 point about the tradeoffs between the semantics, and their<br>
> &gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 relationship with syntactic subsets...<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 <a href=3D"http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/owl2-matrix">=
> http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/owl2-matrix</a><br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 but =
> it still needs some work, and maybe can never be accurate<br>
> &gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 enough to be more helpful than harmful.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;=
> =A0=A0=A0=A0 SECTION 3: Profiles<br>&gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 * I&#39;d pref=
> er this numbered as 2.4.=A0 I think it&#39;s more at the same level<br>&gt;=
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 as 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 and 2/4/5.=A0 ACTUALLY, I think I&#39;=
> d put this BEFORE<br>
> &gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Semantics, so we can do the table of Profiles-vs-Semant=
> ics.=A0 The<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 profiles can be done without talking abo=
> ut the two semantics.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 * I&#39;d like to include=
>  a Venn Diagram, perhaps a version of<br>
> &gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 <a href=3D"http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/owl2-profile=
> s-doc">http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/owl2-profiles-doc</a><br>&gt;=A0=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0 without the roll-overs, and in black-and-white (or make the other=
> <br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 diagram be in color).<br>
> &gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 * I&#39;d like to make it more clear that the prof=
> iles are syntactic<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 subsets -- and that there may be =
> benefits for sticking within those<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 subsets -- and no=
> thing magical than that.<br>
> &gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 * In particular, DL is a syntactic subset of OWL 2=
> , even though it&#39;s<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 not described in Profiles.=A0=
> =A0 That should be shown in this section.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 SECTI=
> ON 4: Differences between OWL 2 and the previous version of OWL<br>
> &gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 * Very clunky title...=A0 How about &quot;What&#39=
> ;s New In OWL 2&quot;?=A0 (it even<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 rhymes)<br>&gt;<b=
> r>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 * Maybe subsections, &quot;What&#39;s the Same&quot; and=
>  &quot;What&#39;s New&quot;, which seems to<br>
> &gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 be the text here, if divided into groups the same size =
> as the<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 subsections in 2.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=
>  * The references here (and in some other places) are not preceeded by<br>&=
> gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 a space, giving us stuff like &quot;Syntax[OWL 1&quot;, =
> which seems<br>
> &gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 typographically wrong to me...<br>&gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=
> =A0 * The XML syntax for OWL 1 seems oddly described, and the link seems<br=
> >&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 wrong.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 * Obviously the edi=
> tor&#39;s note &quot;Editor&#39;s Note: Is this correct? Or are<br>
> &gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 there corner cases to be mentioned?&quot;=A0 needs to b=
> e cleaned up before<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 publication!=A0 I don&#39;t know=
> , either.=A0 If it were left to me, I&#39;d have<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 to =
> leave it in phrased as &quot;still under investigation&quot; or something.<=
> br>
> &gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 * &quot;OWL 1 had only one profile&quot; ...=A0 I =
> think of DL and Full as a<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 profiles.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;=
> =A0=A0=A0=A0 * In what sense was OWL Lite &quot;not retained&quot;?=A0 You =
> can still use it.<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Maybe better to say to say no new =
> specification for it has been<br>
> &gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 provided in OWL2, but it is still usable as a subset of=
>  OWL2.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 * Last paragraph (about punning) should =
> probably have a link to more<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 details, since it&#39;s=
>  a deeply confusing concept.<br>
> &gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 SECTION 5 Documentation Roadmap<br>&gt;<br>&gt;=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0 * Let&#39;s just call it &quot;Document&quot; Roadmap (not &quot;=
> Documentation&quot;) unless<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 we&#39;re calling this t=
> he &quot;Documentation Overview&quot; (which isn&#39;t what we<br>
> &gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 decided.)<br>&gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 * Ummmm.=A0 What =
> versions are we linking to here, for this release of<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
>  Doc-Overview?=A0 The Wiki?=A0 The 2008-12-02 versions?=A0 What about<br>&g=
> t;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Profiles, which is seriously out of date in all versions,=
>  and DRE<br>
> &gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 which hasn&#39;t yet been published?=A0 I GUESS we link=
>  to the last TR,<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 except in the case of DRE, in which=
>  case we say it&#39;s to be published<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 soon, and for =
> Profiles include text in the roadmap about it being out<br>
> &gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 of date.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 * There&#39;s been=
>  some talk of changing the order.=A0 The obvious things are<br>&gt;=A0=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0 to put the non-core specs togther, before or after the user docs.=
> =A0 I<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 happen to like it as it is, since I think &quo=
> t;Profiles&quot; is more core than<br>
> &gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 the other non-core specs, but I wouldn&#39;t object to =
> a change.=A0 We<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 should probably have a WG resolution=
>  on this; I expect RPI and<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Manchester to have strong=
>  conflicting views on this.<br>
> &gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 SECTION 6 References<br>&gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 *=
>  I think these should be organized, somehow; right now I guess they<br>&gt;=
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 are in the order the references are made?=A0=A0 It ends up =
> looking<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 pretty random.<br>
> &gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 How about alphabetic within groups, where the<b=
> r>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 groups are something like:<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0 OWL 1<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 OWL 2<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Other=A0=A0 (maybe divided into W3C and Non-W3C)<br>&gt;=
> <br>
> &gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 * Same question as in Roadmap about which versions we refe=
> r to here.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 SECTION 7 Notes<br>&gt;<br>&gt;=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0 * I don&#39;t really think an overview like this should have foot=
> notes.<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 They don&#39;t seem overview-y.<br>
> &gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 * For Note 1 (from 2.2), this seems too detailed a=
> nd novel for the<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 overview.=A0 And it kind of seems t=
> o undermine conformance -- is<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 RDF/XML required or no=
> t?=A0 Let&#39;s just drop this note, and address<br>
> &gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 this somewhere else if necessary.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=
> =A0=A0 * For Note 2 (from 2.3), this could be inlined in 2.3, or dropped.<b=
> r>&gt;<br>&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 * For Note 3 (from Profiles), that could go into=
>  parentheses.<br>&gt;<br>
> &gt;<br>&gt;<br>&gt;<br>&gt; --<br>&gt; Christine</div>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br>--</div>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead<br>H=
> ome: <a href=3D"http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/">http://www.w3.org/People/Iv=
> an/</a><br>mobile: =A0+31-641044153=A0<br>PGP Key: <a href=3D"http://www.iv=
> an-herman.net/pgpkey.html">http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html</a><br>
> FOAF: <a href=3D"http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf">http://www.ivan-herma=
> n.net/foaf.rdf</a></div>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">=A0</div>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br>-- <br>Christine</div>-- <br>Christine<br>
> 
> --000e0cd29cb07e30800464c8d977--

Received on Wednesday, 11 March 2009 15:18:12 UTC